Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Sued For Alleged Theft of Data Center Design

Posted by timothy on from the architectural-plans-want-to-be-free dept.

itwbennett writes British engineering company BladeRoom Group says it contacted Facebook in 2011 about using its technique, which involves constructing data centers in a modular fashion from pre-fabricated parts. What happened next isn't clear, since much of the public version of BRG's lawsuit is redacted. But it claims Facebook ended up stealing its ideas and using them to build part of a data center in Lulea, Sweden, that opened last year. 'Facebook's misdeeds might never have come to light had it decided that simply stealing BRG's intellectual property was enough,' the company said in its lawsuit, filed Monday at the federal district court in San Jose, California. "Instead, Facebook went further when it decided to encourage and induce others to use BRG's intellectual property though an initiative created by Facebook called the 'Open Compute Project.'"

19 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Modular design... by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... it's apparently an exclusive concept to BRG [facepalm]

    1. Re:Modular design... by Falos · · Score: 3, Funny

      Facepalming as an expression of exasperation is a conceptual construct that is my imaginary property and you have to give me money for saying, using, or thinking it.

      Anywhere in the universe. Forever.

    2. Re:Modular design... by blackomegax · · Score: 2

      Yeah, i mean, if you're going to effectively patent troll, target the company with the most value first. And then fabricate all the evidence since they aren't even citing patent afaik.

    3. Re:Modular design... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

      Hey -- don't ignore the DESIGN part of "Modular Design". A crime novel may follow a pattern seen elsewhere in other crime novels, but lifting while chapters out would constitute breach of copyright. Just because creating something according to a certain methodology is known, that doesn't make your methodology that you labored developing worthless and public domain.

    4. Re:Modular design... by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      I get that BRG feels that way. Considering the specifics of their claim it sounds like Facebook contacted them expecting something unique and novel, found it wasn't, and BRG being greedy and knowing it's the all mighty Facebook tried to gouge them and lost any hope of working together. Facebook went on and said, "lets just do what we do every day and build in a modular manner" (you know, like classes/methods in programming).

      It's such an obvious and old concept that it's not even worth thinking about that much. Read 80s architecture magazines, modular was all the fad back then.

    5. Re:Modular design... by jcr · · Score: 2

      BRG feels it can show in court that it can prove

      More like, BRG thinks FB will pay them to fuck off.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Modular design... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, i mean, if you're going to effectively patent troll ...

      TFA says nothing about patents. The lawsuit is over trade secrets and breach of contract. This clearly implies that a contract was signed between BRG and Facebook, and that as a result of that contract, BRG disclosed their trade secrets to Facebook. So the only thing that matters here is what does the contract say? Since we don't know that, commenting further on this issue is silly.

  2. Trade secret? by bws111 · · Score: 2

    How can you claim something is a trade secret if you show it to others? If you want to keep your design proprietary, patent it.

    1. Re:Trade secret? by monkeyxpress · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter. The idea of these lawsuits is to just cause enough trouble that it becomes more economical for Facebook to settle than to spend the money on a legal defence. The litigants in this case likely have a still-born company so don't have anything to lose anyway. They are probably not even paying the lawyers involved.

      There really isn't much Facebook can do. If they see it through to a successful defence I assure you the litigants will have zero funds to pay out Facebook's costs and will just go under, probably popping up a week later as a new company. So Facebook are going to have to pay a lot of money anyway and seeing the case through to trial also runs the small risk of having a judgement against them. Anyway you can see that if you were unscrupulous and in the litigants position it isn't a bad option if you can't make money from, you know, an actual business.

      It is a stupid system, but I guess the mitigating factor is it will only happen to you if you are really rich.

    2. Re:Trade secret? by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Informative

      How can you claim something is a trade secret if you show it to others? If you want to keep your design proprietary, patent it.

      Or, show it to prospective customers/partners under a Non Disclosure Agreement. Like happens millions of times a year throughout most industries, and probably (I'd be very surprised to find otherwise) happened in this case.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Trade secret? by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

      How can you claim something is a trade secret if you show it to others? If you want to keep your design proprietary, patent it.

      Via a handy catch-all called an NDA. Facebook is in trouble if it stipulated something like "BRG is presenting designs in confidence and all material is proprietary and not to be copied for any reason... Facebook will be held liable for any material/tangential loss due to disclosure of included designs..." etc since Facebook has allegedly shared their "secret modular designs" with the construction firm that won the bid, and Open Compute Project.

    4. Re:Trade secret? by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not debating that. I presume that the company doing the complaining here is suggesting that despite the existing and well-discussed concept of modularity, they had something proprietary that was new or especially creative in leveraging that general concept. That's the sort of nitty-gritty detail that an NDA is supposed to protect.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Trade secret? by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

      Yes, but if they had an NDA they should be suing for breaking the NDA, not theft of trade secrets.

      Given that they had to redact a good bit of the material in the suit, my guess is that they are doing both. And why not? Trade secrets are internationally recognized as property, and property law is pretty easy to assert. If they can show a clear paper trail, they will probably win.

    6. Re:Trade secret? by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup, why do you think IBM and their Nazgul went after SCO so heavily despite it probably costing 10x what a settlement would have? Because it's cheaper in the long run to kill the invaders and put their heads on pikes outside your walls than to pay them off.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Trade secret? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An NDA for a released product makes no sense.

      Sure it does. Just because a product is available to buy doesn't meant that every aspect of its design, operation, or future plans for evolution and enhancement by the manufacturer are something they consider public domain.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  3. Oh c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the design was so special they shouldn't have shared it on Facebook. DUH.

  4. Re:Ummm.... by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did BRG have that concept patented?

    Doesn't matter (but would help their case if it were). Note that the lawsuit isn't for infringement (patent or copyright) but for breach of contract and theft of trade secrets (that Facebook allegedly only had access to in confidence, i.e. via aforementioned contract). It all depends on if Facebook's agents signed anything similar to a NDA when negotiating with BRG for a design contract, in order to review a proposal using their "modular techniques". If BRG was smart they would have papered it up very specifically before they showed any sensitive bits to Facebook.

    Like TFS says we don't have enough info to know if something super specific about the design was copied (like some allegedly optimal ratio of airflow to floorspace to TDP). This is most likely just a contract chase, hoping that the words of whatever Facebook signed are broad enough to catch them for designing anything similar to what BRG had proposed.

  5. Re:modular hospitals by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of the claims aren't listed so it's hard to draw a conclusion. There is a difference between "we pitched them a modular building and they had a contractor build a modular building" and "we pitched them a design for a modular building under contract, they stole the design, and had a competitor build it"

  6. racks, equipment, wires... filing my patent now by swschrad · · Score: 2

    correct me if I'm wrong... but didn't this whole concept of racks, equipment, wires, central power come from the telephone company 100 years ago?

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?